Ohio judge can't post Ten Commandments in courtroom

[Raithere]

Do you therefore believe taking down the poster changes the judge's mindframe any?

If he has half a mind it should. It should illustrate to him that the courtroom is not his private dominion that he serves only at the behest of the people… all the people and not his private sect. It should remind him that he took an oath to uphold the laws of the State and the Nation, not the laws of his personal religion.

~Raithere

P.S. BTW Pete, excellent post. Well said.

 

[SpyMoose]

It should illustrate to him that the courtroom is not his private dominion that he serves only at the behest of the people… all the people and not his private sect.

Actualy Judges are lifetime appointees, not elected officials. The system works this way so that judges may be free to dispense justice in ways that the people do not will. Judges are supposed to be a fair minded well educated elite, and biased towards protecting the moral ideological foundations of the nation. Of course this role was designed for them before political parties and these modern church/state conflicts. Now adays judges are probably more likely to be picked on basis of ideological radicalness and party loyalty than anything else.

That said, southstar is a zealot. It using reason and pointing out the hypocrisy of demanding a judge be allowed to display the ten commandments, but claiming opposition to another judge displaying some sort of satanic memorabilia is proof enough that he thinks his religion is the only right one and that people who do not agree aught to be driven into the sea or otherwise vacate his premices. People like him aren’t even worth discussing things like this with, its not likely at all that you will educate him about the merits of your point of view. I’m of the opinion that dopes like this are probably going to start a ruckus of the violent type if a few more cases like this and like gay marriage are decided in the supreme court, they just cant live nice with the other folk.

 

[Mystech]

If that is the case, by YOUR argument, then an atheist judge is going to DISCRIMINATE against Christians for believing in God.

You know, you've really got to love Christian Zealots. When they're pushing to have their religious beliefs written into law and imposed over everyone then they are just doing the right thing, but when they're held to the same standards as everyone else, or lord forbid even held accountable by the laws which govern us all, then somehow it's discrimination.

 

[Raithere]

Actualy Judges are lifetime appointees, not elected officials.

They are still sworn to fulfill their oath of office which is to serve the law. That they are appointed for life does not give them free reign. And actually, only Federal Judges are lifetime appointees (although I'm unsure about State Supreme Courts). But local Judges like this guy are elected officials.

~Raithere

 

[§outh§tar]

I assert that it is a fair consideration according to Equal Protection.

Consider your question to Pete:



What's in the judge's mind is his own, and within his own domain. Tacking those opinions on the courthouse walls thrusts them into the public domain, where they are inappropriate.

Yes but my point there was the plaque does NOT imply/guarantee any such mistrial, does it?

 

[Tiassa]

Yes but my point there was the plaque does NOT imply/guarantee any such mistrial, does it?

Yes it does. By asserting that one specific fiction among a number of competing fictions is the "foundation" of law, such as this judge in Ohio has, one cannot expect the equal protection of the laws.

It's a political maneuver to boot. The idea being that if you install Christianity in enough places at once in the public sphere, the courts will eventually relent and bow to the "will of the people." The notion is mistaken in two senses: You cannot install any religion long enough and broadly enough to create that sense of the people, and the court will not bow to it over the Constitution, anyway.

The Constitution of the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the Land within its borders. It is a jealous Law that will not be subverted or circumvented. And It will not tolerate attempts by Its very judges, Its guarantors of justice, to participate in or lead that subversion or circumvention.

 

[§outh§tar]

Yes, but is there not a sufficient difference between the expectation and the guarantee of a mistrial ASIDE from the "idea" you have posited.

What you have supplied is a forecast, not a guarantee of any motivation not already intrinsic.

If I put enough good kids among the bad kids they will also turn good. An expectation, but not a guarantee.

 

[okinrus]

I’m sorry, but the historical excuse is an obvious ploy. If the Judge were interested in providing a historical reference why didn’t he display Ur-Nammu's Code, the earliest known legal code, or the Magna Carta? How about the Bill of Rights?

What your asking is to judge the intentions that the judge had upon posting the Ten Commandments. Although there is a possible religious significance that the Judge *may* have intended, there is also an historical significance. Many of these courts have statues of the greek goddess of justice. Hence, we cannot really determine the intentions of what the Judge meant by the posting, some culture may have believed it to have religious value.

Indeed. We also had to put up with Reagan who was said to have consulted astrologers. But there is a difference between Reagan consulting an astrologer and replacing the official seal behind his podium with the zodiac, wouldn’t you agree? Can you honestly not see the difference?

Itention is not something that can be easily judged. This is more due to our "expectation" of goverement being higher than that of other places. We don't call our newspapers that have zodiacs biased towards the religion of the zodiac We overlook this because we know that this is just for "fun." We say we know the intentions of the newspaper. In general, however, we would not know the intentions, and this makes the task of knowing someone's intention rather hard.

 

[Pete]

Do you therefore believe taking down the poster changes the judge's mindframe any?

I believe that the judge needs reminding that their personal beliefs and biases must be left outside the courtroom.

 

[Enigma'07]

Why should he leave God out of the picture when America was founded on Christian beliefs?

 

[Pete]

Because regardless of its founding, America (the State) should be silent on religion.

That is directly implied by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.

Or are you implying that some religions should have more freedom than others?

 

[§outh§tar]

I believe that the judge needs reminding that their personal beliefs and biases must be left outside the courtroom.

Do you truly believe that FULL abandonment of ANY AND ALL bias is possible?

 

[Pete]

No. But that doesn't stop us trying.

 

[§outh§tar]

No. But that doesn't stop us trying.

You don't suppose there would ever be a time in the future when the courtroom will be COMPLETELY void of bias do you?

Well, except if we have robots for judges, but even then...

Thus, all is futility. Throwing the judge's belief out the window to suit the "irreligious" in the hope that it will do some good when logic tells us that bias is here to stay.

Vanity of vanities! Oh, all is vanity! :m:

 

[Pete]

I believe that at least partial abandonment of bias is possible.

 

[Tiassa]

Yes, but is there not a sufficient difference between the expectation and the guarantee of a mistrial ASIDE from the "idea" you have posited.

What you have supplied is a forecast, not a guarantee of any motivation not already intrinsic.

Do you understand the phrase "appearance of impropriety"?

Vigilance does not demand that we wait until trespass occurs. It seems rather quite lazy to simply wait around for things to go wrong when one can also aspire to do them right. Additionally, the Constitution as amended is quite clear on the subject.

 

[§outh§tar]

I believe that at least partial abandonment of bias is possible.

I hear almost doesn't count...

 

[§outh§tar]

Do you understand the phrase "appearance of impropriety"?

Vigilance does not demand that we wait until trespass occurs. It seems rather quite lazy to simply wait around for things to go wrong when one can also aspire to do them right. Additionally, the Constitution as amended is quite clear on the subject.

Well, I do believe in that case there's your opinion of wrong and there's my righteously established definition of wrong..

Thanks for your time tiassa, I enjoyed the conversation despite the futility. Oh the vanity! Perhaps we can all take a look at the success of the Holy Roman Empire in crushing the barbaric nomads and bringing them to God to acknowladge that a theocracy is only a simulacrum of utopia. :m:

 

[Tiassa]

Well, I do believe in that case there's your opinion of wrong and there's my righteously established definition of wrong..

Yes. That's certainly a response. For what discussion, I don't know. But, hey ....

Thanks for your time tiassa, I enjoyed the conversation despite the futility

My pleasure. I only hope you come to understand that equality is not futile.

Perhaps we can all take a look at the success of the Holy Roman Empire in crushing the barbaric nomads and bringing them to God to acknowladge that a theocracy is only a simulacrum of utopia.

(chuckle ....)

Mayhaps.

 

[Pete]

I hear almost doesn't count...

For a judge in a courtroom, less bias is better than more bias.